Protestants, when did the Catholic Church go bad?

[RyanBlack]

The book of Acts has several references to entire households being baptized; I believe there may be one in First Corinthians, also. Do you have some proof that there were no infants or toddlers in those households? For example, in the case of the jailer in Philippi, It doesn’t say he and his wife; it says “he and all his family were baptized at once.”

Of course, that question can simply be turned around. Do we have some proof that there were infants or toddlers in those households? While it’s perfectly plausible that there were, we don’t have proof. Really, we cannot prove from Holy Scripture that infants were baptized by the earliest Christians, and opponents of infant baptism cannot prove from Holy Scripture that they were not. We do know that it was practiced at least as far back as the time of Tertullian, because he referenced it in De Baptismo, which I believe dates to the early third century.

 

[stewstew03]

The relevant point doesnt change …No matter what you want to call the ceremony … My original point remans true. The Catholic tradition that you call Baptism … is not the same as the Baptisms described in the Bible. In Biblical Baptism there is always a conscious decision made by the individual… and total immersion is always part of the process.

How do you know that the households baptized in Acts included all adults/older children, and that they were baptized by immersion? And my guess is that you would charge Paul (in his letter to the Colossians) with using a poor analogy by comparing the act of baptism to the act of circumcision since it was very rare for adults to be circumcised, and impossible for infants to make a conscious to be circumcised…?

 

[Contarini]

Of course, that question can simply be turned around. Do we have some proof that there were infants or toddlers in those households? While it’s perfectly plausible that there were, we don’t have proof. Really, we cannot prove from Holy Scripture that infants were baptized by the earliest Christians, and opponents of infant baptism cannot prove from Holy Scripture that they were not.

Right, but this is a lot more damaging for the opponents of infant baptism than its proponents, because they are generally resting their position on some form of “sola scriptura.”

We do know that it was practiced at least as far back as the time of Tertullian, because he referenced it in De Baptismo, which I believe dates to the early third century.

Yes. And he disapproved of it, which is perhaps a point against infant baptism, except that he speaks of it as if it were a common custom and doesn’t claim that it’s a recent innovation. It’s unthinkable to me that he would not have done so if it had been, since novelty was a huge strike against any practice in the early Church (and until the 18th century at least, I’d say).

Edwin

 

[stewstew03]

Of course, that question can simply be turned around. Do we have some proof that there were infants or toddlers in those households? While it’s perfectly plausible that there were, we don’t have proof. Really, we cannot prove from Holy Scripture that infants were baptized by the earliest Christians, and opponents of infant baptism cannot prove from Holy Scripture that they were not. We do know that it was practiced at least as far back as the time of Tertullian, because he referenced it in De Baptismo, which I believe dates to the early third century.

In addition to Tertullian, it’s also worth mentioning Origen, Cyprian, Hippolytus, and Augustine.

 

[exnihilo]

I’m not sure what you mean by this. “True faith” is just a way of clarifying that there may be other things called faith which really (in the theological sense) aren’t.

Maybe I should first make clear the use of true faith I am talking about is what might be called saving faith. I am not addressing the use of true faith to mean properly directed faith. Nor am I addressing the use of true faith when used to differentiate various articles of faith. It is hard to discuss this because I am not even an amateur theologian and comments on a forum are rather off the cuff, even though I do spend a fair amount of time trying to craft my answer.

What I meant is that if faith has any real meaning then there is no such thing as true faith. If there is true faith there is false faith. I dont think there is false faith. I think what people refer to as false faith or not true faith would best be reffered to as a lack of faith. I dont object to using ‘true faith’ in conversation, but I see using true faith theologically as problematic.

Who would you say is misusing the term? The Protestant claim is that what Catholics call “dead faith” (faith not formed by love) is not really (in the theological sense) faith at all. (Hence, not “true faith.”) What such “faith” (whether the “faith of demons” or the faith of human beings who lack love) is missing is not something external to the nature of faith but an essential part of the only faith that matters from a theological perspective.

I’m not well versed in Catholic use of the phrase ‘dead faith’. If we are talking about the ‘faith’ of demons in James 2:19:

‘Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble’.

Then we are talking about belief, not faith. The demons believe in God and His power, but they do not trust in Him. They also do not conform to His will which is the proper response due to God.

I don’t think that’s a good enough analogy, because it doesn’t capture the faith/love issue. One can truly believe that God exists (as Satan does–though Aquinas would say that Satan’s belief in God doesn’t meet the basic definition of “faith”–more on that in a later post) while opposing Him.

Here’s a more elaborate version of the analogy. Suppose George Bailey (in It’s a Wonderful Life) comes to you and says, “There’s going to be a run on the bank tomorrow, but here’s what I’d like you to do to help me save the bank from closing.” Having faith in George Bailey (in a sense analogous to saviing/living faith) would mean not only believing that there was going to be a run on the bank but helping him in his attempt to save people from losing their lifetime savings. But suppose you are Mr. Potter or one of Mr. Potter’s minions–you believe in the information you have been given but you use it for your own selfish purposes, to make as much as you can and leave everyone else holding the bag. Did you have “faith” in George Bailey?

I probably shouldn’t have chosen a modern bank because of their immoral nature of doing business (making a fradulent promise to return deposits on demand while loaning out those same deposits). Why would faith in Bailey require I help him stop the bank from becoming insolvent? If I have a duty to do good and helping Bailey is good then that duty arises from something other than just my faith in Bailey. You’ve introduced duty into the analogy, which is certainly part of faith in God. But the duty aspect arises out of the nature of God being the creator and morality which flows from Him.

Everyone agrees on this. What we don’t agree on is the precise sense in which the word “faith” can be used for someone who has “intellectual assent” but not love.

I would say ‘intellectual assent’ is just belief and not faith. I would consider them different. This is really the issue that I’m getting at. I think people use the word faith to incorporate too many different ideas.

But if I’m right, that’s not really the case. The point of sola fide isn’t really the “edge case” but the motivating power of faith. Does faith in itself have the power to make someone do good works (because it is naturally and necessarily joined to love) or does there have to be an additional “step” as it were.

When we start talking about motivating power we are talking about the will. I would not consider power an aspect of faith as I’m using the term. I would consider deeds a proper result from faith meaning trust.

Faith is the work of the mind and deeds are the work of the body. Being both mind and body we ought to honor God by directing our will towards His in both mind and body. It is possible to do good deeds without doing them for the right reason. Deeds without the proper motivation have no value. Not doing good deeds is not honoring God. I do not consider deeds an additional step I consider it the expected outcome of faith.

The practical difference can be seen in how Catholics and Protestants preach the Gospel, particularly to those who are baptized and profess Christianity. Protestants say, “Believe in Jesus.” Catholics say, “Go to confession and practice works of charity.”

You might be right. If so I wish Protestants would say ‘Trust in Jesus’. I would also observe that at least in most mainline denominations what is sin has been reduced to not following the Social Gospel. In that way they would be no different from Catholics if all their emphasis is works of charity.

 

[1voice]

How do you know that the households baptized in Acts included all adults/older children, and that they were baptized by immersion? And my guess is that you would charge Paul (in his letter to the Colossians) with using a poor analogy by comparing the act of baptism to the act of circumcision since it was very rare for adults to be circumcised, and impossible for infants to make a conscious to be circumcised…?

In the comparison Paul points out that the source of corruption (the old man) is removed/ cut off by God in baptism … in circumcision the source of corruption was removed. In one case by men in the other by Christ.
He attributes this change, as a result of the act of baptism, to the individuals faith in the power of God. Cognitive agreement is integral to his description of baptism.

Col 2:11
In him you were also circumcised, in the putting off of the sinful nature, not with a circumcision done by the hands of men but with the circumcision done by Christ,
having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead.

 

[Nicea325]

Originally Posted by 1voice
The relevant point doesnt change …No matter what you want to call the ceremony … My original point remans true. The Catholic tradition that you call Baptism … is not the same as the Baptisms described in the Bible. In Biblical Baptism there is always a conscious decision made by the individual… and total immersion is always part of the process.

Nope! You are also wrong. Show me one place in the NT where a young child is ONLY baptized when he or she makes a conscious decision? Second,where is full immersion considered as the only and valid method?

 

[1voice]

Nope! You are also wrong. Show me one place in the NT where a young child is ONLY baptized when he or she makes a conscious decision? Second,where is full immersion considered as the only and valid method?

Jesus said,
He who believes and is baptized shall be saved
… Mark 16:16

---

BAPTIZO – STRONG’S GREEK DICTIONARY, 907[2]
baptizw baptizo bap-tid’-zo

1. to immerse, submerge;
2. to make whelmed (i.e. fully wet); used only (in the New Testament) of ceremonial ablution, especially (technically) of the ordinance of Christian baptism:
3. –Baptist, baptize, wash.

Notice something in the definition of the word ‘baptizo’, IT DOES NOT CONTAIN THE WORD ‘DIP’ AS PART OF IT’S DEFINITION! The Greek word ‘baptizo’ does not mean ‘dip’!

Also, the Greek word ‘baptizo’ was not translated… it was transliterated into the words ‘baptize’ and ‘baptized’ and in EVERY case it used as ‘immerse’ or ‘submerge’… ‘cover wholly with fluid’.

‘Bapto’ means ‘dip’.

‘Baptizo’ means ‘immerse’ or ‘submerge’.

The phrase ‘John the Baptist’ could have correctly been translated ‘John the Immerser’ or ‘John the Submerger’.

BURIED WITH HIM IN BAPTISM
Colossians 2:10 (KJV) And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power:
Colossians 2:11 (KJV) In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:
Colossians 2:12 (KJV) Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.

THE WAY JESUS WAS BAPTIZED
Jesus was immersed in water, not sprinkled, and not dipped.

This is shown by following passages that speak of Jesus coming UP, OUT OF THE WATER. It is not possible to come up out of the water by being sprinkled. It is only possible to come up out of the water if you have gone down into the water first. Also, it makes no sense to walk down into the water waist deep and then have someone sprinkle some water on your head.

UP STRAIGHTWAY OUT OF THE WATER
Matthew 3:13 (KJV) Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him.
Matthew 3:14 (KJV) But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me?
Matthew 3:15 (KJV) And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him.
Matthew 3:16 (KJV) And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:
Matthew 3:17 (KJV) And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

Here is a thorough discussion of baptism.

clearviewbaptist.us/faith/Baptize.htm

 

[Cat_Herder]

Jesus said,
He who believes and is baptized shall be saved
… Mark 16:16

---

BAPTIZO – STRONG’S GREEK DICTIONARY, 907[2]
baptizw baptizo bap-tid’-zo

1. to immerse, submerge;
2. to make whelmed (i.e. fully wet); used only (in the New Testament) of ceremonial ablution, especially (technically) of the ordinance of Christian baptism:
3. –Baptist, baptize, wash.

Notice something in the definition of the word ‘baptizo’, IT DOES NOT CONTAIN THE WORD ‘DIP’ AS PART OF IT’S DEFINITION! The Greek word ‘baptizo’ does not mean ‘dip’!

:yawn:

[BIBLEDRB]Ezekiel 36:25[/BIBLEDRB]

 

[Cat_Herder]

In the comparison Paul points out that the source of corruption (the old man) is removed/ cut off by God in baptism … in circumcision the source of corruption was removed. In one case by men in the other by Christ.
He attributes this change, as a result of the act of baptism, to the individuals faith in the power of God. Cognitive agreement is integral to his description of baptism.

Col 2:11
In him you were also circumcised, in the putting off of the sinful nature, not with a circumcision done by the hands of men but with the circumcision done by Christ,
having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead.

Debunked.

 

[Stilldreamn]

Thanks for pointing to this. My Lutheran pastor suggested the Didache along with Polycarp and other early Church writings as being helpful in my understanding of the foundations of the Church - and also because Luther studied them and had immense regard for them.

I am no scholar, but while Luther had some valid criticisms, the splintering of the Church seems to have been more an outgrowth of resentment of human governing authority by the German princes. I regard this splintering as tragic and the source of tremendous apostasy.

 

[Radical]

Right, but this is a lot more damaging for the opponents of infant baptism than its proponents, because they are generally resting their position on some form of “sola scriptura.”

actually it merely eliminates a win for the opponents on the basis of “if it ain’t expressly endorsed in scripture, then it ain’t permitted.” It makes the playing field, as far as scripture goes is somewhat level.

Yes. And he disapproved of it, which is perhaps a point against infant baptism,…

perhaps? perhaps? It is definitely a point against (particularly when, at that time period, he supports other traditional customs lacking scriptural authority).

…except that he speaks of it as if it were a common custom…

what words or phrases (of his) lead you to conclude that it was common in N Africa at that time?

…and doesn’t claim that it’s a recent innovation.

nor does he say that it was a long established and broadly practiced tradition.

It’s unthinkable to me that he would not have done so if it had been, since novelty was a huge strike against any practice in the early Church (and until the 18th century at least, I’d say).

E Ferguson notes that Tertullian describes infant baptism as something for which a practical and scriptural rationale had been advanced…which is consistent with it being a fairly new practice that needed justification. What about the practice of delaying baptism to as late in life as possible (so as to gain the greatest amount of remission)…do you think that was an original/apostolic approach…or do we have record of that being opposed as a novelty?

 

[1voice]

You folks ask me for Biblical evidence … and one of you even rejected the dictionary. Yet you readily go to outside sources.

 

[Nicea325]

1voice:

Jesus said,
He who believes and is baptized shall be saved
… Mark 16:16

That is not what I asked you. Show me one verse clearly showing a young child making a conscious decision to be baptized? No where does the above mention the age of an individual. Pure conjecture on your part.

---

BAPTIZO – STRONG’S GREEK DICTIONARY, 907[2]
baptizw baptizo bap-tid’-zo

1. to immerse, submerge;

1. to make whelmed (i.e. fully wet); used only (in the New Testament) of ceremonial ablution, especially (technically) of the ordinance of Christian baptism:

1. –Baptist, baptize, wash.

Notice something in the definition of the word ‘baptizo’, IT DOES NOT CONTAIN THE WORD ‘DIP’ AS PART OF IT’S DEFINITION! The Greek word ‘baptizo’ does not mean ‘dip’!

Again…show me where in the NT it explicitly states full immersion is the only valid method?

Also, the Greek word ‘baptizo’ was not translated… it was transliterated into the words ‘baptize’ and ‘baptized’ and in EVERY case it used as ‘immerse’ or ‘submerge’… ‘cover wholly with fluid’.

‘Bapto’ means ‘dip’.

‘Baptizo’ means ‘immerse’ or ‘submerge’.

The phrase ‘John the Baptist’ could have correctly been translated ‘John the Immerser’ or ‘John the Submerger’.

BURIED WITH HIM IN BAPTISM
Colossians 2:10 (KJV) And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power:
Colossians 2:11 (KJV) In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:
Colossians 2:12 (KJV) Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.

At the Jordan—right?

THE WAY JESUS WAS BAPTIZED
Jesus was immersed in water, not sprinkled, and not dipped.

Yep! And Jesus was also baptized at the JORDAN RIVER…were you?

This is shown by following passages that speak of Jesus coming UP, OUT OF THE WATER. It is not possible to come up out of the water by being sprinkled. It is only possible to come up out of the water if you have gone down into the water first. Also, it makes no sense to walk down into the water waist deep and then have someone sprinkle some water on your head.

It also makes no sense to apply this method if one lives by extremely cold waters. Hmmm?

UP STRAIGHTWAY OUT OF THE WATER
Matthew 3:13 (KJV) Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him.
Matthew 3:14 (KJV) But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me?
Matthew 3:15 (KJV) And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him.
Matthew 3:16 (KJV) And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:
Matthew 3:17 (KJV) And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

Here is a thorough discussion of baptism.

clearviewbaptist.us/faith/Baptize.htm

---

The fact that you are misunderstood … doesnt mean you’re an artist.

Wow! So full immersion is the ONLY acceptable method? At the Jordan River-right?

 

[Nicea325]

You folks ask me for Biblical evidence … and one of you even rejected the dictionary. Yet you readily go to outside sources.

And your biblical evidence no where states full immersion is the ONLY valid method. You went outside the source (Bible) by applying standards no where mentioned as being the only valid method.

 

[LittleSoldier]

I’m not sure what you mean by this. “True faith” is just a way of clarifying that there may be other things called faith which really (in the theological sense) aren’t.

Who would you say is misusing the term? The Protestant claim is that what Catholics call “dead faith” (faith not formed by love) is not really (in the theological sense) faith at all. (Hence, not “true faith.”) What such “faith” (whether the “faith of demons” or the faith of human beings who lack love) is missing is not something external to the nature of faith but an essential part of the only faith that matters from a theological perspective

---

That’s the Protestant claim in a nutshell–faith that doesn’t express itself in love has no theological significance. The traditional Catholic view is that such faith does have significance–what it is lacking is love.

---

The practical difference can be seen in how Catholics and Protestants preach the Gospel, particularly to those who are baptized and profess Christianity. Protestants say, “Believe in Jesus.” Catholics say, “Go to confession and practice works of charity.”

---

The Protestant method seems to work better, by and large. I don’t think either side is heretical–indeed, I agree that there are huge problems with many aspects of Protestant soteriology. But on this key point, it seems that the Protestant approach helps people come into a living relationship with Jesus, while the Catholic approach seems largely helpless in the face of “nominal” or “dead” religion.

Edwin

(All underlining has been added by me for emphasis.)

I am troubled by your continued references to the “Protestant” method, claim, etc. It is my understanding that there are a large number of Protestant denominations and that they do not fall under the jurisdiction of one teaching authority (akin to the Magisterium of the Catholic Church). Some Protestant denominations teach that Communion is simply bread (or crackers) and wine (or grape juice) that represents the Body and Blood of Jesus. Some Protestant denominations teach consubstantiation. Some teach transubstantiation. Some teach sola scriptura, and sola fide. At least one teaches that Jesus is not God. When I read some of the words spoken by the faithful in a Lutheran Mass I was astounded to see that the words (in the prayers that I saw (I’m sure there are differences) were almost identical to the words used in the Catholic Mass.

Some Protestant denominations handle snakes and believe in “speaking in tongues.” And I am sure there are many more differences between Protestant denominations - very important differences.

When driving I have *never *seen a church with a sign indicating that it is a “Protestant Church.” What I see are signs indicating that the church in question is Baptist or Methodist or Presbyterian or Lutheran or any of a number of other churches and from what I see on some signs many appear to be nondenominational (I look at lots of churches wherever I go because I think that many are absolutely beautiful in terms of architecture and I’m starting an album of photographs of churches - so I pay particular attention to what is stated on the sign indicating the denomination).

As far as I know there really is no “Protestant” way or claim or whatever. And so I am again confused and wonder why you seem to be putting all Protestant denominations in one basket, so to speak. I would like to know why you do this. It would help me in my understanding of Protestantism.

And I must admit that I am also troubled that you put forth assertions with nothing to back them up - not Protestant or Catholic sources. All I see is your opinion. You compare what you term what “Protestants” say - “believe in Jesus” with what you term what “Catholics” say - “go to confession and practice works of charity.” This is amazingly over-simplified. Catholics don’t say to believe in Jesus but instead to go to Confession and practice works of charity? Do you really believe this? What is present in every Catholic church? A crucifix, showing Jesus in His agony as He performed the sacrifice to open the gates of heaven to everyone. What is the gospel about? Jesus. Jesus is the reason for the Catholic Mass. The faithful worship Jesus as God during the Mass and consume His Body and Blood as He told us to do (if they are free from mortal sin and are inclined to take Communion; nobody is forced). We are told to believe in Jesus but more importantly, we are shown how to believe in Jesus. Confession (which is now called the Sacrament of Reconciliation) *is *very important but it has more to do with reconciling ourselves with God by obtaining forgiveness for our sins than believing in Jesus.

 

[Matthew_P_Muehl]

The relevant point doesnt change …No matter what you want to call the ceremony … My original point remans true. The Catholic tradition that you call Baptism … is not the same as the Baptisms described in the Bible. In Biblical Baptism there is always a conscious decision made by the individual… and total immersion is always part of the process.

Please provide chapter and verse where Christ was baptized by total immersion?

Matthew

 

[RyanBlack]

(All underlining has been added by me for emphasis.)

I am troubled by your continued references to the “Protestant” method, claim, etc. It is my understanding that there are a large number of Protestant denominations and that they do not fall under the jurisdiction of one teaching authority (akin to the Magisterium of the Catholic Church). Some Protestant denominations teach that Communion is simply bread (or crackers) and wine (or grape juice) that represents the Body and Blood of Jesus. Some Protestant denominations teach consubstantiation. Some teach transubstantiation. Some teach sola scriptura, and sola fide. At least one teaches that Jesus is not God. When I read some of the words spoken by the faithful in a Lutheran Mass I was astounded to see that the words (in the prayers that I saw (I’m sure there are differences) were almost identical to the words used in the Catholic Mass.

Some Protestant denominations handle snakes and believe in “speaking in tongues.” And I am sure there are many more differences between Protestant denominations - very important differences.

When driving I have *never *seen a church with a sign indicating that it is a “Protestant Church.” What I see are signs indicating that the church in question is Baptist or Methodist or Presbyterian or Lutheran or any of a number of other churches and from what I see on some signs many appear to be nondenominational (I look at lots of churches wherever I go because I think that many are absolutely beautiful in terms of architecture and I’m starting an album of photographs of churches - so I pay particular attention to what is stated on the sign indicating the denomination).

As far as I know there really is no “Protestant” way or claim or whatever. And so I am again confused and wonder why you seem to be putting all Protestant denominations in one basket, so to speak. I would like to know why you do this. It would help me in my understanding of Protestantism.

And I must admit that I am also troubled that you put forth assertions with nothing to back them up - not Protestant or Catholic sources. All I see is your opinion. You compare what you term what “Protestants” say - “believe in Jesus” with what you term what “Catholics” say - “go to confession and practice works of charity.” This is amazingly over-simplified. Catholics don’t say to believe in Jesus but instead to go to Confession and practice works of charity? Do you really believe this? What is present in every Catholic church? A crucifix, showing Jesus in His agony as He performed the sacrifice to open the gates of heaven to everyone. What is the gospel about? Jesus. Jesus is the reason for the Catholic Mass. The faithful worship Jesus as God during the Mass and consume His Body and Blood as He told us to do (if they are free from mortal sin and are inclined to take Communion; nobody is forced). We are told to believe in Jesus but more importantly, we are shown how to believe in Jesus. Confession (which is now called the Sacrament of Reconciliation) *is *very important but it has more to do with reconciling ourselves with God by obtaining forgiveness for our sins than believing in Jesus.

Sometimes it’s helpful to generalize. It becomes tiresome after a while to qualify every statement with lines such as “almost all,” or “generally speaking.” BTW, Edwin holds a Ph.D. in Church History. In my experience, he knows what he’s talking about.

 

[Publisher]

Question Little Soldier…since you reference “crackers” as being part of “Protestant communion”…am I to understand that crackers could not be used to confect the eucharist by a priest? Far be it from me to “guess” what you were trying to imply by using the word “cracker” instead of simply using “bread and wine” as a memorial rememberance…just wondering as I felt it was not meant as a “charitable” use of “cracker”…but somehow disparaging? I have no dog in this fight…just was wondering.

To friend Ryan’s point…simplifying does help sometimes…

I’m sure your reference to “snake handlers” was not meant in any disparaging way…however I can only guess at the “flack” a Protestant would get if they sought to mention Catholics who walk on their knees on broken glass into church or get crucified on Good Friday as somehow…‘normative’ of Catholic belief…just thought I’d mention these few “less than charitable” characterizations to some of your points…I was just curious as to why you used them…I must confess…didn’t really pay too much more attention to your post after I read “cracker” and “snake handling”…just felt I “knew” where your comments were going and in what 'vein" they were offered after that…forgive me if I was incorrect in my assumptions.

 

[LittleSoldier]

Thanks for pointing to this. My Lutheran pastor suggested the Didache along with Polycarp and other early Church writings as being helpful in my understanding of the foundations of the Church - and also because Luther studied them and had immense regard for them.

I am no scholar, but while Luther had some valid criticisms, the splintering of the Church seems to have been more an outgrowth of resentment of human governing authority by the German princes. I regard this splintering as tragic and the source of tremendous apostasy.

Stilldreamn, welcome to CAF!! And thank you for choosing this thread in which to place your first post. I like your post very much; especially the charity you have shown.

God bless you and may the Holy Spirit grant us the wisdom we need to present and discuss God’s Truth.

Pax vobiscum.